movieman_bg Reviews

Fate as a Rat (2001)

The most pathetic excuse for a film

[7 December 2001]

Sudbata kato pluh or "Fate as a rat" is a schizophrenic excuse for a work of art. While one of the most talented bulgarian actors(Ivailo Hristov) tries to do something in this picture, the rest of the cast is totally lost. Our tradition of creating complex, symbollic movies has once again proven to be inefficient. "Fate as a rat" is the most idiotic picture of the year in Bulgaria. It once again stands to show that cinema in our country is experiencing its most dramatic downfall. Somebody has to do something, but who? Definately not the people who produced this mess.

P.S.: There is no point in trying to give the movie's plot- there is no such. The picture is a confused hodge-podge of trifle ideas about our existence and our pains. Enough said.

Letter to America (2000)

Too much fuss for nothing

[7 December 2001]

"Letter to America" was a thoroughly discussed picture in the year 2000 in Bulgaria. The fact that this movie was our representative at the 2000 Oscar awards, made the discussion even more ardent. Naturally, we didn't even get a nominee for Best Foreign Movie.Why? Because this production is not fit for the international(not to mention the American) audience. The movie is strictly Bulgarian, filled with our culture and made for our people. The journey of one person deep into the mountains in search for remedy, perhaps even for his roots, is pictured very well, but delivered poorly. Bottom of the line- our cinema industry is doing as bad as ever. But perhaps we took a step in the right direction...

Two Bits (1995)

Could've been great, turned out mediocre

[13 September 2001]

The Great Depression has been discussed in one too many movies and "Two Bits" makes almost no exception of the general rule for such a movie: a poor family(usually immigrants), a small child realizing the poverty around him, an older person to guide the child, a sudden understanding of the really important things in life, a little drama, a touching ending, nothing new, nothing bad, unfortunately nothing too good. The exception in the "nothing too good rule" is the usual amazing performance that Al Pacino gives in almost all of his roles. His character, Gitano Sabatoni, touches the viewer deeply, and might even bring a few twinkles in the eyes at the very end. However, one man does not make a team, and Al Pacino could do little to save this movie from mediocrity.

James Foley("Twin Peaks", "Fear") tries to create a deep and touching stroy line, perhaps reaching to the roots of many movie fans. He is not successful, though. The metaphor with the "La Paloma" theater is not that strong and the end could've been made deeper if it had been for a few more words. Anyway, that's not Foley's main problem. The total lack of action in this movie makes it a bit too boring. "Two Bits" is simply too slow to leave a lasting impression. The somewhat strong scenes of grandfather-grandson bonding are immediately followed with aimless roaming around the streets of Philly. Perhaps one of the deepest scenes in the movie(the dancing people on the street) is somewhat lost because the viewer did not expect such a strong message at that time. Simple ideas can be misunderstood when not given in a right time to the viewer. Perhaps the same message "Two Bits" holds(even though much less complicated) is expressed in a brilliant way in "Citizen Kane". In the latter movie however, the viewer is "glued" to the seat at almost every time, whereas in "Two Bits" some people might slip out of their seats.

Anyway, "Two Bits" is worth seeing even if only for Al Pacino's impact. The movie might not be that good as a whole, but it touches a soft spot in many dedicated viewers' hearts. James Foley succeeds in showing the "holyness" of a movie theater to a small kid(or even to an adult). The way "La Paloma" is described, it leaves an impression of something majestic, something sacred, something pure and beautiful. It's a shame that Foley went only so far as to evoke this one picture, for as beautiful as it is, it can't support a whole movie.

The Score (2001)

It's not "Ronin", it's not "Fight Club", but it will do

[10 September 2001]

Very few true cinema admirers can resist jumping from their seats when they hear the names De Niro, Norton, and Brando- especially if they are in one movie. The cast itself promised a huge audience.To some it promised a great movie- I don't believe the cast alone makes the work great(see "Marvin's Room" or "To Wag the Dogs"). However, I must admit the usual goosebumps I feel before every movie got more intense when I went to see this one. Too bad I wasted my goosebumps on something so "regular".

There is nothing bad I can say about the acting(there rarely is with such a cast) even though Angella Basset, who is otherwise a superb actress seemed pretty lost in the action(perhaps due to her role).Anyway, it was pure joy to see young and old Vito Corleone back together(they never were together, but...). On the other hand, I have never been disappointed by Edward Norton's work and he once again proves to be a young, talented actor of a rank almost equal to his companions in this movie. He might not be as convincing as Kaizer Soze in his "crippled act", but he comes pretty dang close.

"The Score" has a pretty nice plot, but don't expect anything too complicated or anything brilliant. It's a nice crime story that leaves you happy, but doesn't affect you in any other way(as opposed to the "Usual Suspects" for instance). "The Score" relies on the sparks that fly when the three actors confront each other. Well, there are sparks, but they certainly don't light up a flame.

"The Score" is a litttle dark, a little slow, a little not up to the competition. However, it is also a little genuine, a little pure, and contains just a little magic. It's a shame to see just a little magic when you have Harry Houdini, David Copperfield, and young Mr. Harry Potter. Better luck next time, magicians.

The Others (2001)

Shyamalan vs. AmenAbar- such an uneven fight...

[9 September 2001]

There is no way you can walk out of a theater where you've just seen "The Others" without making an association with the simply brilliant "Sixth Sense". That's the first connection you make: Others-Sense.Soon enough, however(and thank God)you decide to go deeper into that primal thought and you realize the wide gap between the two movies. Indeed, "The Others" is a movie of medium if not high quality, but the images, thoughts, and feelings Shyamalan and his cast create are on a far greater level. "The Others" might have been more than just a fresh breath of air in a summer full of "chokers"(excluding a few truly good flicks), but it lacked four basic elements that made "The Sixth Sense" a classic: the cast, the suspense, the idea, and most of all- the timing.

Nicole Kidman is not a bad actress, but she can never achieve the impact Jodie Foster(think of Clarice Starling in 1940's England) or Julianne Moore(back to redheads) could've had on this film. Ms. Kidman's role is not shallow ,but she can't quite achieve the image of the distressed mother that Toni Collette creates. Moreso, "The Others" doesn't impress with a memorable cast(except for Alakina Mann- God bless this child) whereas the trio Willis-Collette-Osment leaves a wide mark on your mind.

Probably the most important question surrounding "The Others" was- is it scary???Well, if you are expecting a new exorcist, you're in for a disappointment, but on a whole basis, "The Others" does have its moments. The problem that AmenAbar and his cast fail to overcome is the slowness of the action- you can't have a masterpiece where one really good scene is followed by two extremely boring(I understand the "husband" episode is important, but did it have to go for soooo long- and with Christopher Eccleston???). That's basically "The Others"'s main problem- slow plotin which the really important points might be missed by the half paying attention viewer.

Anyway, I'm sorry I had to compare this movie with "The Sixth Sense", but that's the final problem AmenAbar has-time. This movie simply came out too late and it turns out there are "other" movies that belittle this one.

Moulin Rouge! (2001)

Depends on what you expected

[9 September 2001]

I come from Europe and my perspective is invariably different. To see a U.S. movie based on one of France's biggest attractions, turned into a legend, is quite unusual. It makes it even more unusual to find out that neither the director, nor the main actors are from France.This is like making "The Patriot" with German actors. Evenso, this is not "Moulin Rouge"'s main problem because apart from the truly amazing editing and camera, and John Leguizamo, this piece of art is a bit too shaky.

I say for probably the 100th time that Nicole Kidman is a very unstable actress when it comes to delivering a truly good performance. Indeed, she has her moments, but in fact sucks in playing a courtesan(for those of you unaware- this is something like a prostitute). Her image is far from both Julia Roberts' Vivian Ward("Pretty Woman") and Jodie Foster's Iris("Taxi Driver"). They possesed charisma with intelligence, whereas Kidman has only unlimited sex appeal and beautiful eyes. That's certainly not enough. To top it off, she doesn't sing her songs(more on that later).

Second of all, Ewan McGregor who is otherwise very strong in his roles(Ah, that "Trainspotting") seems very "lost in the action". He does have his strong moments(mostly in the end), but is mostly lost behind John Leguizamo's performance. Speaking of Leguizamo, I have to admit he is more than convincing as the short in stature, but large at heart Toulouse Lautrec. What drove me more than mad is that most people don't even know who he actually was(YES- he was a real person, one of France's most celebrated artists, who died of syphilis). Anyway, Leguizamo deserves at least a few major nominations for secondary character(hint for the Academy).

I'm not even discussing the songs in the movie(great classics- pretty lame arrangement) because except for "Roxanne" everything pretty much fell behind the originals.However, it is not the songs that bother you, it is the fakeness of the performance. Why do you have to make Ewan and Nicole's voices seem so heavenly- IT'S SO NOT REAL!Every time I am asked about a musical, I give "Dancer in the Dark" as an example- pure, simple, brilliant(but that's another topic).

So, as a whole the movie indeed leaves an impression, that regretfully is not lasting. The motion, the action, the colors are very vivid, but i doubt they amount up to what Moulin Rouge was like a 100 years ago. It was something unforgettable, something this movie is not.

The Sixth Sense (1999)

Amazing in every sense

[9 September 2001]

I admit that "American Beauty" deserved the Oscar for Best movie of 1999, but I also have to admit that this movie came in a pretty close second place(all due respect to Michael Caine, but "The Cider House Rules" was not up to the competition). "The Sixth Sense" was almost perfect in every way- starting with the brilliant plot, the chills, the suspense, the acting, the directing, the editing, need I go on? This movie became a classic as soon as it hit the big screen- and in the same year "Fight Club" and "The Matrix" came out. Admit it- anything that becomes competition to those two movies has to be at least brilliant.

First off, there are very few movies which leave you as breathless as this one. And it's not only the ending, but the whole thing- starting with the open cupboards in the kitchen and topping it off with that "realization"(don't worry, i'm not going to spoil it for you, but if you haven't seen this one- rush to the video store!). Speaking of spoiling, this is one of the few movies where you can have the shocking finale and still enjoy the movie more than once. Why? Well, simply because it's a multi-layer, highly developed story which becomes better every time you see it. Mr. Shyamalan achieves cinematography that equals the mastery of Hitchcock and the eye of Orson Welles(although Syamalan doesn't live up to these standards in his later "Unbreakable").Anyway you look at it, the camera is moving and you are following every small motion with a sparkling mind and an enticed eye. Very few directors can control you like that.

Mentioning "The Sixth Sense", there is no way you can't credit young Mr. Osment. That kid has the skill that some "A" class Hollywood actors lack(let's hope he doesn't end up like "wonder boy" Culkin). Haley Joel Osment is not afraid of the camera and creates an unforgettable character full of fear, need of protection, and most of all- innocence. There is no way you can hate that kid(unlike young Mr.Vader in episode one), you feel compassion for the character and you can put yourself in his place. That's again something very few people can create.

There is another person in this movie that deserves immense credit as well. No, it's not Bruce Willis, but rather Ms. Toni Collette. The Australian actress proved she was up to Anjelina Jolie's competition, but the Academy wasn't very keen on giving her the Oscar. Collette creates the image of a truly caring mother, the type of person Susan Sarandon portrays in "Lorenzo's Oil". She begins as a stereotype, but proves to be more than a face in the crowd(quite like Judy Dench in "Shakespeare in Love")and leaves a lasting impression on the viewer.

There is much more to be said, but it would take a rather long time and I would hate to be boring. In conclusion, "The Sixth Sense" is one of those movies that take a part of you for two hours and return a completely different thing. You walk out of the theater and you think: "What people am I seeing?"Living, my friend, living, but they seem so different now...

Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (2001)

Smith is back and his strike is furious!

[10/10 · 8 September 2001]

"Clerks" seemed like a movie connoisseur's dream; "Mall Rats" was a fresh piece of candid comedy; "Chasing Amy" was probably Jay and Bob's most memorable appearance(up until now); finally, "Dogma" was a little cheeky, a little different, but still very good.

Here we are now, in front of Kevin Smith's latest "piece of cake"(as a famous director once said) and I can say wholeheartedly: "The cake is sweeet." Smith creates a comedy full of obscenities, full of sex jokes, and full of "underground" movie hints. And still, it's a COMEDY in the sense of the word created by Monty Python, Mel Brooks, and recently by the Farelli brothers. I must say I haven't enjoyed myself in such a way since i saw "Airplane!" (and that was a long time ago). The numerous appearances by "gods" in the business (George Carlin, Chris Rock, and Smith himself) make this movie even more worthwhile.

However, "Jay and Silent Bob..." is an example of a comedy with an age limit: no one under 17 and no one over 27. That's what creates Smith's problem. Almost every critic that rated this comedy ranged in the ages 40-60 and those people see things in a rather different way (not necessarily bad but different). That is why you may find reviews that give that movie one star out of five. Please, don't become biased and see Smith's piece for yourself. In the age limit, it's a masterpiece, over the age limit, it's anything from "back when i was a kid" to "What the f*** is he trying to say".That's what makes Smith brilliant: his never-ending ability to make controversy.